Hello!! Can I get an OH? My name is Paul Richards and I am currently pursuing my Master's in Middle Childhood Education with my concentration areas of Math and Science. I am pictured above at last year's Ohio State vs. Michigan football game with my wife of 13 years. We have two terrific children, a daughter who will be 12 shortly and a son who just turned 9. In what seems so long ago, I attended OSU and attained a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. After a number of years in Corporate America, I was lucky enough to become a stay-at-home dad from 2002 until current. Three years ago I started to pursue my goal of a teaching certificate in hopes of doing what I love.... teaching (or coaching) children. I can't say that I am a real "techy" kind of guy. I just got a phone this past summer and sent my first text message. Yes, I need to look to my 12 year old daughter to find out how to use my phone properly. Coming from my accounting world, I much prefer post-it notes and 10-key calculators. Given this, I can not say I have any great websites to share with you all. The websites I tend to use are Edline.net, which is used by our children's school to update us on grades and school events and sporting websites for our kids various activities such as CYOSPORTS.org. Yes, I am a little intimidated by this class because I know it will be very new and challenging. However, I am hoping to be able to learn and utilize some things that will be helpful in my teaching endeavors.
I looked at the class fears, and I can't offer any silver bullets. However, I can say many of the fears are probably what is to be expected for starting a new class. I know that I can relate to many on the list. What I do know, we should strive to be a community of learners that work together and help each other out. Week 1 - Read and Reflect:
Jonassen Article: From this article, I learned that there seems to be an internal debate by many scholars in the instructional system field as to whether learning of instructional systems technology (IST) is made through the philosophical assumptions of objectivism or constructivism.
Objectivism has its roots in realism and essentialism. Realism beliefs base the existence of the real world, external to humans and independent of human experience. In this opinion, reality is structured and we, as humans, strive for knowledge by gathering and organizing information through individual experiences (Jonassen, 1991, p.8).
Constructivism, however, has an opposite view of reality. Constructivists claim that reality is more in one's mind and a person constructs or interprets information through experiences in the external world (Jonassen, 1991, p.10).
The author points out the fact that much of IST is currently based on the principles of objectivism with the goal of instruction being to map external reality onto learners. However, if instruction is changing to a more constructivist approach to learning, how does that impact IST? The findings suggest that a middle ground somewhere between the two philosophies may be the best way to balance controlled learning and instructional freedom.
Cronje Article: In this article, the author presents a point of view that constructivism and objectivism philosophies do not have to be mutually exclusive. The author presents an argument, and attempts to validate through case study, that learning through IST can contain both objectivist and constructivist elements at the same time. The author creates a hypothesis by comparing the two, not on a straight line, but rather by a right angle. This approach creates a four quadrant grid which is labeled in the following way (Cronje, 2006, p.396):
Injection: High Objectivism / Low Constructivism
Construction: Low Objectivism / High Constructivism
Immersion: Low Objectivism / Low Constructivism
Integration: High Objectivism / High Constructivism
Through examples, the article details how the two philosophies can co-exist based on the degree of each and are not mutually exclusive.
After reading these articles, I reflected on my own opinions about instruction and the learning sciences. It would be my opinion that I would side with the findings from the Cronje article. As with many of my beliefs and instruction experiences, I tend to find a middle-of-the-road approach seems to work best. In this instance, I believe an instructor needs to provide some building blocks and a foundation of knowledge, although this may at times be rote and repetitive in nature. This type of instruction would be representative of objectivism. Then, it would be the goal state to move students to be free thinkers and problem solvers, more in line with constructivism.
A couple questions that I am left with after reading these articles.
Why do so many scholars in the field seem to feel this philosophical debate is linear in nature and learning must lie somewhere on this line?
How does this change in paradigm from objectivism to constructivism align with our current teaching standards and assessments?
References
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Week 2 - Read and Reflect:
Both of this week’s articles pertained to difficulties in utilizing technology in classrooms that only have one computer. The basic premise in both articles was very similar. If there is only one computer in a classroom, how can you best utilize this tool? In both articles, it was suggested that setting up various stations, one being the computer, would be a good option. This approach would allow computer access by all students or at least small groups and work to improve any “traffic” tie-ups. One thing I found interesting in the Anderson article was the final point. An instructor needs to make sure the computer does not become a reward for the fast students who finish other work early. In any situation, such as computer use, all students need to be considered equally and priority should not be given to the brightest or fastest students. These are situations I constantly reflect in my own instruction and class management. In the Chiaka article, three specific management strategies were provided. (post a schedule, draw popsicle sticks, and establish a predetermined daily group order) I do not feel any of these would be ideal solutions or ones that would be utilized in my classroom. It has been my experience that things change quickly in the classroom (snow days, assemblies, absences, etc.) and that creating a set schedule may only add to computer problems. When the schedule gets disrupted, and it will, students will feel inequity in their computer time and rebalancing will become an issue. I feel this type of approach may create more problems than those initially trying to resolve. I also think the popsicle approach may be too disruptive and distracting to the class.
To me, this is a problem that should be manageable for an instructor who is adequately prepared (as mentioned in both articles) and has good time management skills. The computer should be a tool to enhance the students learning and not a toy for finding a way of incorporating technology in the classroom. The key is finding ways to make the computer accessible, when necessary to enhance instruction, and efficient in its use.
I relate many of my teaching experiences to coaching, which I’ve done for many years. I often have a number of players and limited resources for a particular team. For example, when coaching basketball, I may only have one basket and a ½ of a gym for practice. I will structure my practice so that my drills are best suited to utilize the facility and maximize the skills being learned. I may then be given a gym another night in which I have a full court and six baskets. I will then tailor my practice to accommodate these resources. Bottom line is that I am adequately prepared, ready to make adjustments, and maximize my resources, so that my players can improve their skills, efficiently. I would structure my classroom with the same principles and philosophy, no matter what my computer constraints.
Knowing my classroom experience is limited; I have not seen a whole lot of computer usage from the students. In my previous year (7th Grade - Science), the only computer in the class was the teachers. The teacher utilized the computer through classroom activities using the overhead projector. This year (4th Grade – All Subjects), the classroom has 4 computers available class use in addition to the teacher’s computer. What I have seen this year has been much the same. The instructor often utilizes his own computer for whole class instruction by using videos (you-tube or the like) and music. The student computers have been used on a limited basis and mostly at the end of the day during “free time”. The students seem to be using the computers for completing math activities. I have not seen any glaring problems with regard to this use. My current placement also has a “special” class once a week where the students go to the library to learn about technology and research. This provides the students with a great opportunity to see how technology can be utilized and incorporated in their learning. Although this class my not provide students individual exploration, it provide them with some exposure to different technologies.
Questions:
How may have found the lack of technology in their classroom experiences to have been an impediment to instruction? If so, what were some ways these hurdles were overcome?
In what ways have you seen technology specifically utilized by your students and not just the instructor and the overhead? Week 4 - Read and Reflect (Copyrights/Fair Use)
These two articles dealt with the general topic of copyright infringements and the legalities associated with individuals, such as educators, using copyrighted material. In the Hobbs article, the topic of fair use was detailed as the most important tool in copyright for educators. Fair use recognizes the core speech values enshrined in the First Amendment. In effect, the doctrine creates a kind of situational public domain. The flexibility of this fair use doctrine is one of its great strengths, but it also can be a source of frustration to would-be users who seek absolute certainty that they are not breaking the law. (Hobbs, Jasizi, Aufderheide, p. 6) I feel the fair use is a basic guideline to use when determining whether using some type of media would be a copyright infringement. The fair use provision of the Copyright Act is written broadly, not narrowly, because it is designed to apply to a wide range of creative works and the people that use them. Fair use is a part of the law that belongs to everyone, especially educators (Code of Best Practice, p.10)
I must admit I never really thought about copyright laws and my classroom until reading these articles. With the technological explosion over the past two decades, I can see how this topic needs to be a concern or at least teacher awareness. When growing up, I can remember after every football game the announcer would say, “The copyright if this program is the property of NBC and any use or re-broadcast without the express written consent is strictly prohibited”. When our family purchased our first VCR, I can remember wondering if my watching a taped football game was unlawful. Now that our technology is so much more than VCR’s, getting copyrighted material such as songs and telecasts is very simple. Because of this, as teachers, we need to be aware what our rights and limitations regarding media material use. The problem is that this area is not black or white. It appears like there is a huge grey area and a lot left up to individual interpretation. After reading these articles, I am still unclear what is acceptable to use and would fall under fair use. I often think it is confusing when legal matters meet practical ones. I believe this is an instance where most teachers are not knowingly or at least intentionally trying to be unlawful. Rather, they are trying to use some media resources to better and deeper the education of their students.
After reading this week’s articles, I am certainly more aware of copyright laws and the need to be aware of resources one uses in the classroom. I did say “aware”, but I did not say “clear”. Even after reading both articles, I can’t say I am really clear what would fall under fair use and what would not. What I did find comforting was that one of the “truths” (Code of Best Practice, p11) was that it is very unlikely that one would get sued. For me, it may be a case that the use of media in my classroom will be ask for forgiveness as opposed to ask for permission, in a broad sense. However, I will certainly find out what my particular school and school district’s rules are regarding the use of media in the classroom. I know in my current placement, any media that is to be shown to the class has to be preapproved by the principle before it may be used in the classroom.
Questions:
After reading these articles, I wonder “what type of liability we, as educators, assume when copyrighted materials are used in the classroom?”
Also, “what are the personal experiences for those in our class as it pertains to copyrighted materials in their current placements or jobs?” Week 5: Read and Reflect (Web 1.0 and Web 2.0)
This week’s articles were very interesting and thought provoking for me. As technology continues to advance, so does our use. Internet usage is now a two-way street. In the 90’s, Web 1.0 users mainly focused on presented information and users were basically “consumers” of this information. Only those very computer savvy and HTML knowledgeable were information broadcasters. Now, in the next generation phase of internet usage known as Web 2.0, the users are both presenters and participants of information, thus being both “consumers” and “producers”. (Rosen & Nelson, 2008) The new ease of this new read-write web has allowed for an explosion in social media.
Personally, I now feel like parents from a prior generation must have felt with the “Beatle Invasion” and “Elvis Mania”. The wave of new technology has surged and our youth are the ones at the beach. We, as instructors, need to find ways to utilize these new forms of communication in our instruction. As this social revolution unfolds, Web 2.0 tools’ greatest power is that it can change the nature of student learning and lead to Education 2.0. (Rosen & Nelson, 2008) Though there may be a paradigm shift in how I previously viewed instruction, I see this as a very exciting time to teach and look forward to being part of these technology challenges.
One thing I found interesting and had not previously thought much about was how social economic factors can play a significant part in a students learning in this new arena. There seems to be a large gap in technology access and, thus, experience based on factors such as income. This will be something I am conscious of and consider when constructing and implementing a web-based inquiry into my classroom.
Some potential problems with web based inquiry were addressed in the article Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with Web Quests. With the abundance of information now available to students, learning should no longer be the memorization of facts or mere assimilation of knowledge. Educators should focus their attention from basic skills to a deeper learning and critical thinking type of student. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007) I liked the idea of using a Web Quest for instruction. This method would allow students to utilize technology but still have some parameters or guidance for the learning objectives. Web Quests provide a way to close the gap between content learning and technological literacy. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007) Creating a well-planned Web Quest lesson would meet many of the NET Standards and performance indicators. Most specifically, an effective Web Quest would facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity. The Ikpeze & Boyd article provided an excellent example of how a real-life problem (environmental choices) could engage students to then solve this authentic problem (water conservation for shower vs. bath), consistent with the NET Standards. The inquiry based approach to a Web Quest lines up well with a constructivist’s view of learning. Students are allowed to make choices and have some control of their learning. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007)
There are some potential problems I can see with technology based learning. An instructor needs to be aware of time-management and resource constraints. Another problem that exists is the development of these learning activities requires creativity and flexibility on behalf of the teacher. This is an important point as many of the current teachers are those least comfortable with new technology but are the ones responsible for creating the new instruction plans. I place myself in this category. I am not technology adverse or incompetent, but would admit to being a relative novice. My personal technology uses, for example, have never included Facebook. The only time I have blogged have been through classroom discussion boards.
What I gathered from these articles is that I need to try and embrace and utilize much of the new technology in my classroom. To capture and excite my students, I will need to communicate on their platform, not vice versa. With some careful planning and creativity, developing lesson plans that integrate technology will be an effective way to engage students. Students who are engaged will be more motivated to learn by exploring, questioning, discussing and, therefore, construct their own knowledge. As an instructor, I plan to incorporate technology, to the best of my ability, in order to facilitate this journey.
Questions:
I read and understand using technology to enhance and deepen the learning experience of students. However, I have not seen, personally, the use of this in a classroom setting. Can anyone share a personal success story where a technology based inquiry lesson was used in your class?
The Web 2.0 article asks “Who blogs”? It states most bloggers are relatively young (in their late teens and early twenties). I have never blogged myself other than on class discussion boards for class. What reasons do you blog? To whom do you blog? How much time do you spend each week blogging or on social media websites such as Facebook or Twitter? For me, I’m not opposed to it. I just don’t have the time or desire. Week 8 Read and Reflect (Devices):
The two articles this week were very interesting and dealt with a very relevant issue that we all face in our classroom. The articles deal with how to effectively use current technology in the classroom. The one article focused on using the interactive whiteboard (IWB) and the other dealt with other technologies such as IPods and IPads. What I find consistent with my teaching experience is , no matter what technology being introduced to a classroom, the physical tool is not as important as the one instructing and using it. Teachers are the critical agents in mediating the software, the integration of the software into the subject aims of the lesson and appropriate use to promote quality interactions and interactivity. (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, Thompson, 2005).
The article dealing with the whiteboards detailed four case studies of teachers using this technology for instruction. Some teachers had them in their classroom and some only had limited access to the IWB. Also, some teachers were given school supported training and while others were on their own to explore the technology and the capabilities. What I found is that technology can’t simply be put in the classroom and expect that it will become an effective tool for enhancing student learning. Teachers are no different than the students we teach. We make sense of things from what we already know. Using the IWB would be no different and instructors may likely use this new digital whiteboard as an extension of the non-digital ones they’ve experienced. One of the great advantages for using the IWB in class is the interactions it can provide. However, IWB will not facilitate this interaction if it is perceived only as a presentation tool. Also, it is critically important that an instructor to fully understand the technology and realize the entire potential of the tool. To aid this, instructors need proper support, in-service, and training to become proficient users and facilitators of the technology.
What I found consistent in both articles is that the technologies not become the focal point or emphasis while allowing the learning objective to become secondary. Instructors must continually remember the important piece of a lesson is not the tool for delivery but the ultimate learning goal. New technologies provide us many ways to introduce information to our students in various formats and at much greater speed. However, the content of what we are delivering is much the same. In the Banister article, there was detail on some apps that introduce young children to various zoo animals; correct spelling and sounds they make. When I grew up there was a speak-n-spin toy that did the same thing. You put an arrow on the animal picture (with the spelling) and pulled the string. The toy would say “the pig goes, oink, oink”. When my children were at this learning age, they had game that taught similar things using V-tech, a kid version of PlayStation. Now, children can learn the information using an IPad. The tool for delivery may change but the content is consistent. As a teacher, it will be our responsibility to understand and utilize the available technology that support and enhance student leaning.
The technologies discussed in these articles could be tailored to meet all of the NETS performance indicators. However, based on my reflection on the articles, I feel it is important that the instructional learning goals are not lost using technology. Because of this, indicator 1) Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity should be remembered by the instructor. Teachers should develop their lessons using available technologies to promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness using their available technology.
Questions:
1) What are some classroom management techniques for keeping students on task while using various technologies?
I often have my students use the “personal” white boards at their desk. The students often get distracted by “doodling” or coloring. The students enjoy using the boards and they help me to get a quick informal assessment. However, some students can become easily distracted. I can only imagine the difficulties of staying on task with some of the app capabilities.
2) How has been provide any in-depth training for using the interactive white board?
Currently, I have very limited experience using the IWB and do not feel I have the experience to effectively use this technology for instruction.
Hello!! Can I get an OH? My name is Paul Richards and I am currently pursuing my Master's in Middle Childhood Education with my concentration areas of Math and Science. I am pictured above at last year's Ohio State vs. Michigan football game with my wife of 13 years. We have two terrific children, a daughter who will be 12 shortly and a son who just turned 9. In what seems so long ago, I attended OSU and attained a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. After a number of years in Corporate America, I was lucky enough to become a stay-at-home dad from 2002 until current. Three years ago I started to pursue my goal of a teaching certificate in hopes of doing what I love.... teaching (or coaching) children. I can't say that I am a real "techy" kind of guy. I just got a phone this past summer and sent my first text message. Yes, I need to look to my 12 year old daughter to find out how to use my phone properly. Coming from my accounting world, I much prefer post-it notes and 10-key calculators. Given this, I can not say I have any great websites to share with you all. The websites I tend to use are Edline.net, which is used by our children's school to update us on grades and school events and sporting websites for our kids various activities such as CYOSPORTS.org. Yes, I am a little intimidated by this class because I know it will be very new and challenging. However, I am hoping to be able to learn and utilize some things that will be helpful in my teaching endeavors.
espn.com
CYOSPORTS.ORG
I looked at the class fears, and I can't offer any silver bullets. However, I can say many of the fears are probably what is to be expected for starting a new class. I know that I can relate to many on the list. What I do know, we should strive to be a community of learners that work together and help each other out.
Week 1 - Read and Reflect:
Jonassen Article: From this article, I learned that there seems to be an internal debate by many scholars in the instructional system field as to whether learning of instructional systems technology (IST) is made through the philosophical assumptions of objectivism or constructivism.
Objectivism has its roots in realism and essentialism. Realism beliefs base the existence of the real world, external to humans and independent of human experience. In this opinion, reality is structured and we, as humans, strive for knowledge by gathering and organizing information through individual experiences (Jonassen, 1991, p.8).
Constructivism, however, has an opposite view of reality. Constructivists claim that reality is more in one's mind and a person constructs or interprets information through experiences in the external world (Jonassen, 1991, p.10).
The author points out the fact that much of IST is currently based on the principles of objectivism with the goal of instruction being to map external reality onto learners. However, if instruction is changing to a more constructivist approach to learning, how does that impact IST? The findings suggest that a middle ground somewhere between the two philosophies may be the best way to balance controlled learning and instructional freedom.
Cronje Article: In this article, the author presents a point of view that constructivism and objectivism philosophies do not have to be mutually exclusive. The author presents an argument, and attempts to validate through case study, that learning through IST can contain both objectivist and constructivist elements at the same time. The author creates a hypothesis by comparing the two, not on a straight line, but rather by a right angle. This approach creates a four quadrant grid which is labeled in the following way (Cronje, 2006, p.396):
Injection: High Objectivism / Low Constructivism
Construction: Low Objectivism / High Constructivism
Immersion: Low Objectivism / Low Constructivism
Integration: High Objectivism / High Constructivism
Through examples, the article details how the two philosophies can co-exist based on the degree of each and are not mutually exclusive.
After reading these articles, I reflected on my own opinions about instruction and the learning sciences. It would be my opinion that I would side with the findings from the Cronje article. As with many of my beliefs and instruction experiences, I tend to find a middle-of-the-road approach seems to work best. In this instance, I believe an instructor needs to provide some building blocks and a foundation of knowledge, although this may at times be rote and repetitive in nature. This type of instruction would be representative of objectivism. Then, it would be the goal state to move students to be free thinkers and problem solvers, more in line with constructivism.
A couple questions that I am left with after reading these articles.
References
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Week 2 - Read and Reflect:
Both of this week’s articles pertained to difficulties in utilizing technology in classrooms that only have one computer. The basic premise in both articles was very similar. If there is only one computer in a classroom, how can you best utilize this tool? In both articles, it was suggested that setting up various stations, one being the computer, would be a good option. This approach would allow computer access by all students or at least small groups and work to improve any “traffic” tie-ups. One thing I found interesting in the Anderson article was the final point. An instructor needs to make sure the computer does not become a reward for the fast students who finish other work early. In any situation, such as computer use, all students need to be considered equally and priority should not be given to the brightest or fastest students. These are situations I constantly reflect in my own instruction and class management. In the Chiaka article, three specific management strategies were provided. (post a schedule, draw popsicle sticks, and establish a predetermined daily group order) I do not feel any of these would be ideal solutions or ones that would be utilized in my classroom. It has been my experience that things change quickly in the classroom (snow days, assemblies, absences, etc.) and that creating a set schedule may only add to computer problems. When the schedule gets disrupted, and it will, students will feel inequity in their computer time and rebalancing will become an issue. I feel this type of approach may create more problems than those initially trying to resolve. I also think the popsicle approach may be too disruptive and distracting to the class.
To me, this is a problem that should be manageable for an instructor who is adequately prepared (as mentioned in both articles) and has good time management skills. The computer should be a tool to enhance the students learning and not a toy for finding a way of incorporating technology in the classroom. The key is finding ways to make the computer accessible, when necessary to enhance instruction, and efficient in its use.
I relate many of my teaching experiences to coaching, which I’ve done for many years. I often have a number of players and limited resources for a particular team. For example, when coaching basketball, I may only have one basket and a ½ of a gym for practice. I will structure my practice so that my drills are best suited to utilize the facility and maximize the skills being learned. I may then be given a gym another night in which I have a full court and six baskets. I will then tailor my practice to accommodate these resources. Bottom line is that I am adequately prepared, ready to make adjustments, and maximize my resources, so that my players can improve their skills, efficiently. I would structure my classroom with the same principles and philosophy, no matter what my computer constraints.
Knowing my classroom experience is limited; I have not seen a whole lot of computer usage from the students. In my previous year (7th Grade - Science), the only computer in the class was the teachers. The teacher utilized the computer through classroom activities using the overhead projector. This year (4th Grade – All Subjects), the classroom has 4 computers available class use in addition to the teacher’s computer. What I have seen this year has been much the same. The instructor often utilizes his own computer for whole class instruction by using videos (you-tube or the like) and music. The student computers have been used on a limited basis and mostly at the end of the day during “free time”. The students seem to be using the computers for completing math activities. I have not seen any glaring problems with regard to this use. My current placement also has a “special” class once a week where the students go to the library to learn about technology and research. This provides the students with a great opportunity to see how technology can be utilized and incorporated in their learning. Although this class my not provide students individual exploration, it provide them with some exposure to different technologies.
Questions:
How may have found the lack of technology in their classroom experiences to have been an impediment to instruction? If so, what were some ways these hurdles were overcome?
In what ways have you seen technology specifically utilized by your students and not just the instructor and the overhead?
Week 4 - Read and Reflect (Copyrights/Fair Use)
These two articles dealt with the general topic of copyright infringements and the legalities associated with individuals, such as educators, using copyrighted material. In the Hobbs article, the topic of fair use was detailed as the most important tool in copyright for educators. Fair use recognizes the core speech values enshrined in the First Amendment. In effect, the doctrine creates a kind of situational public domain. The flexibility of this fair use doctrine is one of its great strengths, but it also can be a source of frustration to would-be users who seek absolute certainty that they are not breaking the law. (Hobbs, Jasizi, Aufderheide, p. 6) I feel the fair use is a basic guideline to use when determining whether using some type of media would be a copyright infringement. The fair use provision of the Copyright Act is written broadly, not narrowly, because it is designed to apply to a wide range of creative works and the people that use them. Fair use is a part of the law that belongs to everyone, especially educators (Code of Best Practice, p.10)
I must admit I never really thought about copyright laws and my classroom until reading these articles. With the technological explosion over the past two decades, I can see how this topic needs to be a concern or at least teacher awareness. When growing up, I can remember after every football game the announcer would say, “The copyright if this program is the property of NBC and any use or re-broadcast without the express written consent is strictly prohibited”. When our family purchased our first VCR, I can remember wondering if my watching a taped football game was unlawful. Now that our technology is so much more than VCR’s, getting copyrighted material such as songs and telecasts is very simple. Because of this, as teachers, we need to be aware what our rights and limitations regarding media material use. The problem is that this area is not black or white. It appears like there is a huge grey area and a lot left up to individual interpretation. After reading these articles, I am still unclear what is acceptable to use and would fall under fair use. I often think it is confusing when legal matters meet practical ones. I believe this is an instance where most teachers are not knowingly or at least intentionally trying to be unlawful. Rather, they are trying to use some media resources to better and deeper the education of their students.
After reading this week’s articles, I am certainly more aware of copyright laws and the need to be aware of resources one uses in the classroom. I did say “aware”, but I did not say “clear”. Even after reading both articles, I can’t say I am really clear what would fall under fair use and what would not. What I did find comforting was that one of the “truths” (Code of Best Practice, p11) was that it is very unlikely that one would get sued. For me, it may be a case that the use of media in my classroom will be ask for forgiveness as opposed to ask for permission, in a broad sense. However, I will certainly find out what my particular school and school district’s rules are regarding the use of media in the classroom. I know in my current placement, any media that is to be shown to the class has to be preapproved by the principle before it may be used in the classroom.
Questions:
After reading these articles, I wonder “what type of liability we, as educators, assume when copyrighted materials are used in the classroom?”
Also, “what are the personal experiences for those in our class as it pertains to copyrighted materials in their current placements or jobs?”
Week 5: Read and Reflect (Web 1.0 and Web 2.0)
This week’s articles were very interesting and thought provoking for me. As technology continues to advance, so does our use. Internet usage is now a two-way street. In the 90’s, Web 1.0 users mainly focused on presented information and users were basically “consumers” of this information. Only those very computer savvy and HTML knowledgeable were information broadcasters. Now, in the next generation phase of internet usage known as Web 2.0, the users are both presenters and participants of information, thus being both “consumers” and “producers”. (Rosen & Nelson, 2008) The new ease of this new read-write web has allowed for an explosion in social media.
Personally, I now feel like parents from a prior generation must have felt with the “Beatle Invasion” and “Elvis Mania”. The wave of new technology has surged and our youth are the ones at the beach. We, as instructors, need to find ways to utilize these new forms of communication in our instruction. As this social revolution unfolds, Web 2.0 tools’ greatest power is that it can change the nature of student learning and lead to Education 2.0. (Rosen & Nelson, 2008) Though there may be a paradigm shift in how I previously viewed instruction, I see this as a very exciting time to teach and look forward to being part of these technology challenges.
One thing I found interesting and had not previously thought much about was how social economic factors can play a significant part in a students learning in this new arena. There seems to be a large gap in technology access and, thus, experience based on factors such as income. This will be something I am conscious of and consider when constructing and implementing a web-based inquiry into my classroom.
Some potential problems with web based inquiry were addressed in the article Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with Web Quests. With the abundance of information now available to students, learning should no longer be the memorization of facts or mere assimilation of knowledge. Educators should focus their attention from basic skills to a deeper learning and critical thinking type of student. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007) I liked the idea of using a Web Quest for instruction. This method would allow students to utilize technology but still have some parameters or guidance for the learning objectives. Web Quests provide a way to close the gap between content learning and technological literacy. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007) Creating a well-planned Web Quest lesson would meet many of the NET Standards and performance indicators. Most specifically, an effective Web Quest would facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity. The Ikpeze & Boyd article provided an excellent example of how a real-life problem (environmental choices) could engage students to then solve this authentic problem (water conservation for shower vs. bath), consistent with the NET Standards. The inquiry based approach to a Web Quest lines up well with a constructivist’s view of learning. Students are allowed to make choices and have some control of their learning. (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007)
There are some potential problems I can see with technology based learning. An instructor needs to be aware of time-management and resource constraints. Another problem that exists is the development of these learning activities requires creativity and flexibility on behalf of the teacher. This is an important point as many of the current teachers are those least comfortable with new technology but are the ones responsible for creating the new instruction plans. I place myself in this category. I am not technology adverse or incompetent, but would admit to being a relative novice. My personal technology uses, for example, have never included Facebook. The only time I have blogged have been through classroom discussion boards.
What I gathered from these articles is that I need to try and embrace and utilize much of the new technology in my classroom. To capture and excite my students, I will need to communicate on their platform, not vice versa. With some careful planning and creativity, developing lesson plans that integrate technology will be an effective way to engage students. Students who are engaged will be more motivated to learn by exploring, questioning, discussing and, therefore, construct their own knowledge. As an instructor, I plan to incorporate technology, to the best of my ability, in order to facilitate this journey.
Questions:
I read and understand using technology to enhance and deepen the learning experience of students. However, I have not seen, personally, the use of this in a classroom setting. Can anyone share a personal success story where a technology based inquiry lesson was used in your class?
The Web 2.0 article asks “Who blogs”? It states most bloggers are relatively young (in their late teens and early twenties). I have never blogged myself other than on class discussion boards for class. What reasons do you blog? To whom do you blog? How much time do you spend each week blogging or on social media websites such as Facebook or Twitter? For me, I’m not opposed to it. I just don’t have the time or desire.
Week 8 Read and Reflect (Devices):
The two articles this week were very interesting and dealt with a very relevant issue that we all face in our classroom. The articles deal with how to effectively use current technology in the classroom. The one article focused on using the interactive whiteboard (IWB) and the other dealt with other technologies such as IPods and IPads. What I find consistent with my teaching experience is , no matter what technology being introduced to a classroom, the physical tool is not as important as the one instructing and using it. Teachers are the critical agents in mediating the software, the integration of the software into the subject aims of the lesson and appropriate use to promote quality interactions and interactivity. (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, Thompson, 2005).
The article dealing with the whiteboards detailed four case studies of teachers using this technology for instruction. Some teachers had them in their classroom and some only had limited access to the IWB. Also, some teachers were given school supported training and while others were on their own to explore the technology and the capabilities. What I found is that technology can’t simply be put in the classroom and expect that it will become an effective tool for enhancing student learning. Teachers are no different than the students we teach. We make sense of things from what we already know. Using the IWB would be no different and instructors may likely use this new digital whiteboard as an extension of the non-digital ones they’ve experienced. One of the great advantages for using the IWB in class is the interactions it can provide. However, IWB will not facilitate this interaction if it is perceived only as a presentation tool. Also, it is critically important that an instructor to fully understand the technology and realize the entire potential of the tool. To aid this, instructors need proper support, in-service, and training to become proficient users and facilitators of the technology.
What I found consistent in both articles is that the technologies not become the focal point or emphasis while allowing the learning objective to become secondary. Instructors must continually remember the important piece of a lesson is not the tool for delivery but the ultimate learning goal. New technologies provide us many ways to introduce information to our students in various formats and at much greater speed. However, the content of what we are delivering is much the same. In the Banister article, there was detail on some apps that introduce young children to various zoo animals; correct spelling and sounds they make. When I grew up there was a speak-n-spin toy that did the same thing. You put an arrow on the animal picture (with the spelling) and pulled the string. The toy would say “the pig goes, oink, oink”. When my children were at this learning age, they had game that taught similar things using V-tech, a kid version of PlayStation. Now, children can learn the information using an IPad. The tool for delivery may change but the content is consistent. As a teacher, it will be our responsibility to understand and utilize the available technology that support and enhance student leaning.
The technologies discussed in these articles could be tailored to meet all of the NETS performance indicators. However, based on my reflection on the articles, I feel it is important that the instructional learning goals are not lost using technology. Because of this, indicator 1) Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity should be remembered by the instructor. Teachers should develop their lessons using available technologies to promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness using their available technology.
Questions:
1) What are some classroom management techniques for keeping students on task while using various technologies?
I often have my students use the “personal” white boards at their desk. The students often get distracted by “doodling” or coloring. The students enjoy using the boards and they help me to get a quick informal assessment. However, some students can become easily distracted. I can only imagine the difficulties of staying on task with some of the app capabilities.
2) How has been provide any in-depth training for using the interactive white board?
Currently, I have very limited experience using the IWB and do not feel I have the experience to effectively use this technology for instruction.